the_cave

But all religions have certain things in common. They all believe that there is some sort of being outside of our individual beings which me must somehow acknowledge. They all have similar ethics--don't kill, don't lie, don't be unfaithful, honor your parents, etc. This is regardless of their particular interpretations--the history of religion, in the West anyway, is generally the slow extension of these ethics to larger and larger groups. Now maybe these are just human ethics, but they tend to be enmeshed with religious concerns. This is an interesting fact.

Interfere, no, but that doesn't mean there isn't a divine presence within creation itself.



It doesn't. Who said it was helpful?



And all you've done is displace the mystery of a god into the mystery of our creation.



And for some reason you feel more comfortable to have these unknowns resting in what you label as "some mysterious scientific doohicky-or-other".



And you're left having to answer...(I'll let you fill in the blank.)



...(you can fill in this blank, too.)

But God isn't spontaneously-forming; the only reasonable God would be an eternal one--one who is present both outside of time, as well as inside of time. To me, this is a far simpler presupposition than a universe self-creating ex nihilo.

Some physicists have postulated the existence of a "timeless quantum foam" (I did not coin that phrase) to explain the origin of the universe. When you start to investigate the properties of this entity, it starts looking a lot like God, without the name. Now if you believe in the Timeless Quantum Foam, you can call it the Timeless Quantum Foam if you want; but it sounds to me like the scientists have finally figured out a way to talk about religion.

Ensign Steve

Not having the mental energy or desire to respond to the entirety of this post which was not addressed to me, I had to address this one thing in particular:

There is no maybe about it.

Quote:

but they tend to be enmeshed with religious concerns. This is an interesting fact.

Interesting or not (and my vote is not), that fact does not lead to any logical conclusion about the existence of god.

DMB

I have only just come to this thread and have read through it with interest. The initial question is really a curious one. I am sure that JubalsCall fails to believe in a huge number of ideas (and I would call god an idea). Do you, JubalsCall (or may I refer to you as JC for short?) believe in the atheists' favourite supernatural entity, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Can you give a really interesting answer if I ask, "Why not?"

Nearly everyone basically answered, "Because I don't see any reliable evidence to lead me to believe." The world makes at least as much sense without god(s) and religion as it does with them. I would suggest that it is rather for believers to justify belief than for unbelievers to justify unbelief.

Then JubalsCall does what most new xians on this board do: s/he defines atheist in a way that applies to very few people here, even though we may call ourselves atheists. I would like to make it very clear:
I don't believe that god(s) exist
is not the same as
I believe that god(s) doesn't/don't exist
People who make either statement can call themselves atheists, the ones who say the first are much more common than the ones who say the second.

I was brought up by atheist parents. They weren't particularly interested in religion, but I received a hell of a lot of xian indoctrination at school. Nevertheless, I never adopted a religion. If I were to want to do so now, how on earth would I choose one? They all seem to have flaws. One of the most curious things about religions is the way in which they are mostly transmitted from parent to child, so that we can talk to some extent about xian, muslim or hindu, etc. countries. It really is very odd that where you live should determine what you believe is the ultimate truth.

With regard to the idea that saying god did it solves the mystery of how/why our universe exists, I'm sorry that I cannot buy it. The postulated god appears to be something even more complex and mysterious than the universe. So then we ask how/why god exists and get the infinite regression already referred to.

Ensign Steve

At the risk of taking this thread off-topic (heehee) I remember reading somewhere very recently (possibly at PAM?) about the hereditary nature of religion. The point was that there is a "natural selection" to religions. You get the one that your parents had, with possible small mutations. The ones that were the strongest survived and were passed along to further generations. Ironic that the Ultimate Truth should be determined by natural selection.

Jen

Biff the unclean

One of the reasons that I don't believe in God is my familiarity with cons. Three card Monty, the badger game, the shell game, "gold bricks", Nigerian officials who send out E-mails that offer you a lot of money for a modest investment.
Each of these cons appeals to a person's greed. Give the Con man some money and you are promised a huge return. In every case the promise isn't real, the brick is lead, the Nigerian is from Hoboken.

The Old God Game works this way. The Con dresses up in fancy clothes and tells you, who are not in fancy clothes, that you are bad. You are bad and you are going to be punished. You are going to die because you are bad, you are going to suffer because you are bad, but he isn't because he is 'Holy.' ('Holy' is a meaningless word invented just for this con job.) For a price you can be 'Holy' too, and you'll live forever in a wonderful place with mansions and gold brick streets. At this point one of the Con man's shills starts carrying on about how they have been saved and how wonderful they feel.
The "John" forks over his dough and goes through a little nonsense play. Maybe the Con dunks him in water, maybe not…depends on which version of the scam they are pulling.
For the rest of his life the "John" is hit up for money periodically, usually weekly.
Even though they have been promised that they will live forever eventually they die. This is where the Con man needs a "real set of balls." The Con stands over the dead body of the John and tells the victim's friends and relations that he isn't really dead, that he is off in some invisible place having a great time. And then the Con hits the John's mourners up for money, to "save" themtoo.

I don't believe in God because I know a racket when I see one. You really can't cheat an honest man, no matter what Pascal thinks.

Ensign Steve

Well said, Biff! :notworthy

Lobstrosity

As was already said, this isn't a surprise. These are all behaviors that lead to a stable society. Religion served as law for societies that had no "police" who were there to protect and serve 24/7. Forget the small ways in which they are similar and look at the innumerable ways they are different. What you don't seem to get is that each makes highly specific claims as to the exact nature of God and all of these claims differ. Many have multiple gods. Many others would in the past have you executed for proclaiming that there is more than one god. The rules for getting into each afterlife vary from religion to religion. Each person believes that his religion is the absolute truth. Clearly either nearly everyone (or in my take flat-out everyone) who presumes to know the truth is mistaken. My whole deal is that I am not willing to tell you the exact rules for getting into the specific afterlife that awaits us. This is because I know of no such reason to believe in an afterlife so I guess I'll just have to find out when I get there (or not). Of course religions are similar: they are all concocted to answer the same questions. To do so effectively, all have to require faith (since there is no evidence that can be produced and if you look too hard you'll see all the holes), all require an intelligent all-powerful force (if god doesn't fit this bill, how's he going to hear you pray for him, reward you for worshiping him, and care for you in life and death?), and all need to enforce rules that produce social stability, for long ago the church was the state. If you look at the particulars of the answers each religion provides, however, you see they vastly differ when not required for obvious social stability.

I have no idea what this even means. If creation was the product of unintelligent forces rather than a supreme creator, does it make the "divine presence" any less ... present? The universe is what it is whether an intelligent being created it or not. It will not stop being amazing if we one day can show that there was no intelligent hand at work.

See, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not displacing any mystery. I fully accept that this mystery exists. Who knows how the universe formed? I don't. Therefore when someone asks how the universe formed, the answer is "I don't know, but some evidence points to the early moments of formation as looking like ----." I will not respond with "well, God created everything...oh, and let me tell you about this guy: God is freaking fantastic. He's so smart and powerful! He does all of this wonderful stuff for everyone and when you die you get to go be with him and your loved ones! Isn't that great?" I do not know whether creation was spawned by intelligence so I will make no claims about it, for it is just foolhardy to presume to be able to do so. I'm fine with people saying "God" created the universe if they make absolutely no statements as to what that god is (including whether it has actual sentience).

When I say people are displacing the mystery into a God, I mean that they are obtaining the answers to the tough questions from a God they think they know. They truly believe that the mystery is solved and the questions they can't answer (such as where did God come from and why does God do the things he does) are not meant for man to know; they believe these questions literally can't even be asked. There, mystery solved. No point in worrying about anything else because I know as much as any human can ever know.

No, I feel comfortable speaking the truth. These are things we don't yet know but sure as hell are going to try to objectively investigate and answer. I do not feel comfortable calling it God and saying "there, all done."

Why? What do you base this claim of "reasonable" on? Why is the only reasonable God eternal and how is an eternal God in actuality reasonable at all? People used to say that the only reasonable universe would be an eternal, static one. Newton felt this must be the case. Before Hubble, how do you think scientists and the public would have reacted to the notion that the universe spontaneously exploded from a single point about 13.7 billion years ago? It certainly wouldn't have seemed "reasonable" then. I personally find the notion of a God who just sits there for all time (always has, always will; all powerful; all intelligent; makin' universes just to pass the time) incredibly unsettling. Why would there be an intelligent, powerful being just sitting there? He just is? At least with our universe we have a set of actually remarkably simple rules that lead to remarkable complexity as systems evolve over time and combine en mass. With god you have a system of enormous complexity that just always was, and that to me is unsettling as it simply reeks of intelligent design (and intelligent design when applied to the creation of God is plain weird).

No, scientists have finally found a way to talk about the fundamental origins of the universe, which just coincidentally happens to be what religion tries to talk about through plain guesswork.

Dr. Retard

Aquinas had three cosmological arguments. One from motion, one from causation, and one from contingency. I think the motion argument (the First Way) has been largely abandoned. The others are still widely discussed by philosophers.

In any case, I think none of them work.

And, to add to the thread, I guess I'm an atheist because I see no good reason for believing in God. But it's not like this is a matter of choice. It just happens -- you look at the arguments and the evidence and you think about it, and the position naturally follows. Consequently, I can't give some perfect account of the conditions under which I would and would not believe in God's existence. I can only guess, by observing my current opinions about what count as good reasons. I'm not sure why this is so interesting. I think it's the same reason people hold any position on some intellectual issue. It's the same reason people are theists, or communists, or evolutionists, or utilitarians, or whatever. They think about it, and they reach a conclusion.

Some specific reasons:

* the failure of theistic arguments
* the sheer weirdness of an omni-perfect disembodied mind, subsisting outside of space and time, somehow possessed of the ability to will a universe into existence
* all the appalling, revolting, soul-destroying evil
* the absence of any reliable moral guidance or information, be it directly from God, from God's 'messengers', or from God-constructed consciences
* the life of nonbelievers, who curiously never encounter good reason to believe
* the paucity and skewed distribution of religious experience
* the life of believers, who curiously never encounter any clarifying information about God's nature, his plans, his desires, etc. -- when they argue about theology, they have to do so in relative ignorance
* God's silence in the face of it all

the_cave

The following is a rather long post. Probably so far off-topic it boggles the mind. I apologize. I felt it offered me an opportunity to express my opinion on a variety of subjects I'd been waiting to address, so please excuse me. The moderators have every right to move it to a new thread, if they deem it necessary.

No problem; feel free to respond to anything you like. To make it easier, I've spliced your comments in with Lobostrity's.



(This was written in response to my thought, "Maybe [ethical systems] are just human creations".)

Alright...let me be more specific. I think I didn't make myself clear. What I mean is, even if you are religious, that doesn't entail that ethical laws are divinely granted. The origins of ethics in human nature (a loaded term, I'm using it anyway, assuming you believe in it), or even human culture, is compatible with religious belief. However, I find it interesting that humans generally associate the force of such behaviors with their connection with their conception of the divine. You replied:

I agree; but then I didn't say any such thing. Unlike some, I guess, I don't think religion is a matter for logical proofs. Please note that this does not mean it is illogical. There are plenty of areas of our lives (that includes atheists) for which proof via logic simply has little relevance. Literature, art, relationships, our emotional lives...I don't see why religion can't be a part of that sphere (indeed, it is, as anyone would agree).

Many believers do, I agree. Clearly they are mistaken. Some do not, and they are not mistaken on that point.

Perhaps, but I think I had better skip this to save space; my response would be related to the comments below:

(The following is written in response to my suggestion that there could conceivably be a "divine presence within creation itself").

Quote:

I have no idea what this even means. If creation was the product of unintelligent forces rather than a supreme creator, does it make the "divine presence" any less ... present? The universe is what it is whether an intelligent being created it or not. It will not stop being amazing if we one day can show that there was no intelligent hand at work.

Well, first off, if an unintelligent force created the universe, I'm willing to call it a supreme creator, which it undeniably is. If you're not willing, well, I guess that's your prerogative.

But what I mean by "divine presence" is simply the existence of some quality within, or interacting with, the universe. Like time and space, or the invisible dimensions which the superstring theorists tell us are present, yet too small to be practically detectable, or sentience (which some perfectly rational, sane scientists and philosophers suggest is a characteristic of matter and/or energy itself.) Don't counter this with an argument like "but we've never detected any such thing, and it's futile to speculate", because that's not what I'm saying. I'm merely illustrating the kind of thing which I might term "divine presence".

Lastly, if you're confused by my position so far (which I expect you are), let me say that it is perhaps exactly the "amazing"-ness of the universe which I would call divine, or a part of divinity. You can jump up and down in frustration at this if you like, but there's really nothing objectionable to my doing so.

This is perhaps an illustration of my unusual perspective; you should not assume that I hold the traditional positions of Christian orthodoxy (though I will not deny that I may be an orthodox Christian; it's simply not my intention to discuss it here.) I'm interested in finding a vocabulary to discuss the unnaturalness of nature, which I experience every day (and so do many, especially scientists and philosophers, but also common folk.) I find that the language of religion best expresses these sentiments. And as such, this language refers to real objects. I guess I understand if you don't want to speak that language. I'm confused as to why you're not letting yourself do so. It seems so much richer, indeed more accurate, than the mere equations of science (which are, to my lights, a part of religious language.)

If I may risk sounding harsh (I can assure you it's intended in a friendly, playful manner), it sometimes seems as though atheists are the kind of people who, upon my wishing them "Good luck!" would reply "It's useless to say so, you dolt." Perhaps next they can explain to me that the dawn does not actually have rosy fingers.

Quote:

See, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not displacing any mystery. I fully accept that this mystery exists. Who knows how the universe formed? I don't. Therefore when someone asks how the universe formed, the answer is "I don't know, but some evidence points to the early moments of formation as looking like ----." I will not respond with "well, God created everything...oh, and let me tell you about this guy: God is freaking fantastic. He's so smart and powerful! He does all of this wonderful stuff for everyone and when you die you get to go be with him and your loved ones! Isn't that great?" I do not know whether creation was spawned by intelligence so I will make no claims about it, for it is just foolhardy to presume to be able to do so. I'm fine with people saying "God" created the universe if they make absolutely no statements as to what that god is (including whether it has actual sentience).

Well, I can make _some_ statements about God, inasmuch as you can make statements about the early moments of formation. I can make statements about God, inasmuch as I can observe the features of the cosmos (which includes myself, and all people), knowing that such features are in some way a part of God (how do I know this? Because that's the way my language works. But it isn't some special language which only I know--it's the same one you use, and that the scientists use. It's also the same one poets use.) _If_ God is present within his/her/its own creation (which it/he/she is, according to, for example, Christianity), then I know, for example, that God is present within my own self, and yours as well (as well as being present outside myself.) To me, saying that such a God does not exist is to me like saying I don't exist, because I am merely a bundle of synapses, or chemical reactions. Surely no one would say that.

Quote:

When I say people are displacing the mystery into a God, I mean that they are obtaining the answers to the tough questions from a God they think they know. They truly believe that the mystery is solved and the questions they can't answer (such as where did God come from and why does God do the things he does) are not meant for man to know; they believe these questions literally can't even be asked. There, mystery solved. No point in worrying about anything else because I know as much as any human can ever know.

There you and I might be on the same page. I would certainly agree that God is quite myserious indeed, at least as mysterious as the universe (but then, to me, they're both the same mystery.) And indeed, we should strive to find the answers; however, even science presents us with questions that may be unanswerable. I'm not the first to say this; it's actually the scientists and philosphers themselves who say this.

Now, I imagine you will tell me at this point "But Ockham's Razor forces us to abandon the concept of God, because it's too complicated." But the mystery and amazingness of the universe (and the universe itself) remains. If that's what I'm already calling God, there's no problem.

Quote:

I do not feel comfortable calling it God and saying "there, all done."

Neither do I, nor do many theologians. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any theology any more.

Quote:

What do you base this claim of "reasonable" on?

Well, the same basis, I suppose, that atheists use when they claim that a self-creating universe is reasonable. What are _they_ basing their claim on? I'm assuming they're basing it on their "makes sense to me" faculty, which I am also using, but please let me know if this is otherwise. I mean it.

Quote:

People used to say that the only reasonable universe would be an eternal, static one. Newton felt this must be the case. Before Hubble, how do you think scientists and the public would have reacted to the notion that the universe spontaneously exploded from a single point about 13.7 billion years ago? It certainly wouldn't have seemed "reasonable" then.

These are good points, but they make me doubt that there is a definition of "reasonable" that's, well, reasonable. Because while Newton was claiming that a static universe was reasonable, the theologians were claiming otherwise. So the term should be off-limits to atheists, as well.

Quote:

I personally find the notion of a God who just sits there for all time (always has, always will; all powerful; all intelligent; makin' universes just to pass the time) incredibly unsettling.

I presume this means you find it unreasonable

But what if I claimed that I found the notion of a self-creating universe, or a timeless quantum foam, or a multiverse of infinitely replicating universes, incredibly unsettling? Would that affect your case?

Quote:

At least with our universe we have a set of actually remarkably simple rules that lead to remarkable complexity as systems evolve over time and combine en mass.

If you can call any of the currently available Theories of Everything simple. I don't.

Quote:

No, scientists have finally found a way to talk about the fundamental origins of the universe, which just coincidentally happens to be what religion tries to talk about through plain guesswork.

If this is really what you mean, sounds pretty good for the guesswork, since they're starting to make similar claims.

Ensign Steve

Actually, it was written in response to your thought "Now maybe these are just human ethics..."

I'm not trying to split hairs or argue semantics, I just feel there's a fundamental difference between the two quotes (humans owning and using something not quite being the same as creating something), and I want to make sure my meaning remains in its original context. I see from your clarification that you meant "creation," but since that's not how you said it the first time, that's not the meaning I read, so I was responding to something different. Thanks for the clarification, and based on that meaning, I take back my comment about "there's no maybe about it." I don't profess to know the source of human ethics or morals, I can only speculate in that area.

Jen